I listened to this report by James Corbett again yesterday; and the information he provided is well worth your time to listen. It is more relevant than ever; as the ratcheting up of the propaganda machine has increased exponentially since he produced this podcast in 2007! Some amazing quotes, including a prediction of a false flag to kick this off by none other than Zbigniew Bzezinski.

In this episode of The Corbett Report, we examine the likelihood and the implications of an American strike against Iran. We also examine the possibility of a false flag nuclear terror event prompting a war with Iran.

Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795

Thanks for posting this, Pillkia. I'm afraid you're right, this information is as relevant as ever now that we stand once again on the brink of all-out war. If people are interested in the documentation for this episode, they can use the following link for a list of articles, videos and documents sorted by podcast time index:

If there is ONE THING we can do to prevent these maniacs from starting WWIII, it is to EXPOSE the next false flag and make people aware of the LONG TERM PLAN to invade Iran.

If you can distribute this information to as many people as possible, show people that these war-mongers are exposing themselves in the links provided below, we will do a lot of damage to their plan to create yet another "Pearl Harbor" to justify another war.

When the false flag happens, and it will happen as promised by Brzezinski, we can completely destroy their shock and awe campaign because people will KNOW that it's a hoax.

Thanks to James Corbett for this excellent collection of original source material.

Documentation - Brzezinski warns of false flagLink To: Prisonplanet.comTime Reference: 23:23Description: Washington political insider warns the Senate that a false flag terror event may be used as an excuse for invading Iran.

Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the Trilateral Commission Zbigniew Brzezinski tacitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation in Iraq or a false flag terror attack within the U.S.

Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran," which would revolve around "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Brzezinski was careful to highlight the word "defensive" as if to discount its credibility, suggesting that the Bush White House itself would be behind the attack or provocation and subsequently use it as a pretext for war.

"That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance," argues WSWS.org.

After Senators asked Brzezinski for clarification of exactly what he meant, the Polish-American political scientist referenced the infamous White House memo in which Bush and Blair discussed staging a provocation for an invasion of Iraq following the absence of weapons of mass destruction. Brzezinski cited how Bush "described the several ways in which this could be done," but refused to elaborate, stating only, "the ways were quite sensational, at least one of them."

Brzezinski is of course referring to the plan to fly a U2 spy plane painted with UN colors over Iraq and goading Saddam to order the aircraft shot down, resulting in widespread international support for the war. Bush and Blair openly discussed the possibility of staging this provocation along with others during their January 31 2003 meeting.

"If one is of the view that one is dealing with an implacable enemy that has to be removed, that course of action may under certain circumstances be appealing. I’m afraid that if this situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, and if Iran is perceived as in some fashion involved or responsible, or a potential beneficiary, that temptation could arise," said Brzezinski.

After his testimony, journalist Barry Grey tried to pin down Brzezinski and get specifics on the warning, asking, "Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?"

"I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace," responded Brzezinski.

Should an attack occur within the U.S. as Brzezinski forecasted could happen, Dick Cheney's USSTRATCOM contingency plan calls for attacking Iran in the immediate aftermath of a 'second 9/11' - no matter who is behind it - which of course is going to be the cabal Dick Cheney fronts for itself and the same pack of murderers that are actively seeking to initiate global ethic cleansing and genocide to bring about world war three.

During his testimony, Brzezinski lamented that the invasion of Iraq represented "a historic, strategic and moral calamity."

Brzezinski's words and his desire to see the exercse of a "moral" foreign policy ring hollow, especially when it is understood that it was the former National Security Advisor to Carter himself who was responsible for drawing up the plan to arm and train the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen at the end of the 70's and groom Osama bin Laden as a client of the U.S.

In addition, in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Brzezinski calls for the U.S. to install itself as the world's only superpower by taking over the Middle East and using it as a lever to control what he terms the Eurasian Balkans.

Similar to the PNAC yearning for a "new Pearl Harbor," Brzezinski concludes that the realization of such an agenda will only be accomplished with the aid of "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat," which was helpfully provided by the events of 9/11.

So for Brzezinski to win plaudits for being critical of what's happening in Iraq is not only the height of hypocrisy, it's a myopic leap of logic that omits the past history of Brzezinski's rampant warmongering.

Whatever the reason for Brzezinski's apparent sudden change of heart, be it a pang or consciousness of simple political maneuvering, judging from his previous writings one feels it's more appropriate to take his reference to a false flag attack as a threat rather than a warning.

Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795

Documentation - STRATCOM contingency planLink To: American ConservativeTime Reference: 09:25Description: Details of the contingency plan that Cheney asked STRATCOM to draft to automatically strike Iran after another terror event...regardless of who is to blame.

Documentation - Ted Koppel wants to bomb IranLink To: International Herald TribuneTime Reference: 09:53Description: Ted Koppel gets the memo from the White House and independently argues that the US should attack Iran in the wake of the next terror attack...regardless of who is to blame.

Documentation - The RedirectionLink To: New YorkerTime Reference: 10:21Description: Seymour Hersh article from the New Yorker detailing the Bush administration's plans for war with Iran.

Documentation - Saudis, US sponsoring covert actionLink To: Raw StoryTime Reference: 11:34Description: Raw Story article on the Atlantic report about $300million of funding being funnelled to Iranian terrorists to destabilize the Iran regime.

Documentation - Operation AjaxTime Reference: 12:59Description: The now-admitted CIA operation to overthrow the democratically-elected leader of Iran and replace him with a ruthless dictator in 1953.Link To: NY Times

Documentation - 2 carrier strike groups in Persian GulfLink To: Global ResearchTime Reference: 15:05Description: There are 2 aircraft carrier strike groups in the Gulf and a third on the way.

Documentation - US to suffer losses upon attacking IranLink To: MosNewsTime Reference: 16:28Description: The head of the Moscow Air Defense delivers a thinly-veiled threat to the US about attacking Iran.

Documentation - Gulf of TonkinLink To: WikipediaTime Reference: 19:35Description: The staged event which allowed the US government to announce the Vietnam War to the general public.

Documentation - Fake Maritime BordersLink To: Craig MurrayTime Reference: 20:56Description: The former head of the British Maritime Administration says that the map the British used to show their sailors were in Iraqi waters is fake.

Documentation - Webster Tarpley speaks in Seattle, April 1, 2006Link To: Google VideoTime Reference: 24:08Description: The Webster Tarpley speech in which he outlines the 15 drills going on at various agencies on the very day of Sept. 11

Documentation - Tripod IILink To: From the WildernessTime Reference: 24:55Description: Details of the bioterror drill set to begin in New York the week of Sept. 11

Documentation - NRO running drills of jets crashing into buildings on 9/11Link To: Boston.comTime Reference: 25:05Description: The National Reconnaisance Office just happened to be running a drill of jets crashing into government buildings on the morning of September 11.

Documentation - Peter Power admits simultaneous drillLink To: Prisonplanet.comTime Reference: 26:15Description: The President of Visor Management admits his company was running a simulation for a major London corporation that postulated bombs going off at the exact same time in the exact same places as the bombs actually went off on July 7, 2005.

Documentation - Ardent SentryLink To: DefenselinkTime Reference: 28:52Description: One of the many government drills in which a low-yield nuclear weapon is set off in a major metropolitan centre.

Documentation - False Flag NewsLink To: False Flag NewsTime Reference: 29:34Description: A site which publicizes upcoming drills so that they cannot be used to stage a false flag terror event.

Logged

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

~ Thomas Paine, A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, 1795

On Morning Joe, Carter's former national security adviser said there "is a sense of pervasive malaise" in America. What's worse, suggested Zbig, Pres. Obama hasn't been able to figure out how to deal with the malaise. Ruh-roh!

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think we're now going through a phase in which there is a sense of pervasive malaise, which affects different groups in society in different ways.

So people are dissatisfied; they're slightly worried; they don't see a good certain future for themselves or for the country, but in their own narrow sphere.

There's no grand mobilizing idea. And I have a sense that Obama, who started so well, and who really captivated people—he captivated me!—has not been able yet to generate some sort of organizing idea for an age which combines a malaise that's pervasive and percolating, and complexity.. . .

PAT BUCHANAN: We need a new paradigm!

BREZINSKI: And the President hasn't articulated it.

BUCHANAN: No he hasn't.

BREZINSKI: There goes any further invitation to the White House!

Brzezinski clearly understood the personal implications of his downer of a diagnosis: "there goes any further invitation to the White House!" The panel all enjoyed a good chuckle, but could anything be much worse for PBO than to be seen as the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter?

Historical Note: Here's more on the Malaise Speech itself. Interestingly, although Carter adviser Pat Caddell used "malaise" in his notes for the speech, Carter himself never actually employed the word, speaking instead of a "crisis of the spirit in our country."

No Goneril, She: Good daughter that she is, Mika tried to put the best face on father's words. As Zbig lamented the end of his White House invitations, Mika twice pointed out that he had said "yet." In other words, it's not that pops had painted the president an irredeemable failure. It's just that PBO hasn't come up with a solution to the malaise "yet."

As he was asked repeatedly in his Q and A session, "Bust and Boom" author Matthew Brzezinski is indeed the nephew of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish-born former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter. A cold and calculating thinker who has been described as the Democrats’ Henry Kissinger, the elder Brzezinski has tried his hand at non-fiction, writing many books, including his 1997 The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geo-Strategic Imperatives. In this book he noted, among other things, the strategic role of securing Afghanistan (as well as Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and - surprise - Poland) in relation to the American empire to hedge in Russia or any other rival to control of the “Grand Chessboard” of Eurasia.

Zbig’s own earlier role in Afghanistan was pivotal, encouraging and provoking the Soviet invasion of December 1979 that triggered the Jihad where bin Laden and the other future al Qaeda leaders met and learned the tools of the terror trade. This was a conscious plan of Brzezinski’s to give the USSR “its Vietnam War” to “make the Soviets bleed for as much, as long as possible” but with no American deaths. [1] President Carter agreed, approved funding, and sent Zbig to Islamabad in January 1980 to show support for Pakistan’s resistance against the Soviet occupation. He took a little side-trip to the Afghan border to rally the international coalition of radical Islamists; dressed in a parka at the Khyber Pass, Zbig told them “your fight will prevail because your cause is right and God is on your side.” [2]

Whatever works at the time works, including dirty tricks like creating terrorist networks; but Zbig continued to boast of this as “an excellent idea” even as late as an early 1998 interview in which he asked his interviewer “what is more important in world history, the Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire? Some agitated Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” [2] At the time it may have seemed a toss-up, but later that year two US embassies blew up in Africa and bin Laden declared holy war on the US – his crusade started taking on its eventually convincing global dimensions as a replacement for the Soviet threat.

Zbig’s son Ian Brzezinski is now helping the Pentagon keep Central Europe “liberated” from Russian domination as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs, appointed shortly after 9/11, in November 2001. Ian is at virtually every Pentagon meeting where European diplomats are present, usually seated right next to the top U.S. official. A longtime NATO insider, he spearheaded the effort to shape its expansion into Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. All seven “North Atlantic” states were approved for membership in March 2004, followed by Brzezinski’s capstone article “An Alliance Transforming.” [4] His advising record and his catalog of writings indicates that Ukraine, once the second most powerful Soviet Republic, is the final prize in this campaign, a play right out his dad’s 1997 book!

Ian's brother Mark Brzezinski has also helped in this process, as a possible Secretary of State if John Kerry had won in 2004, and otherwise devoted to the “Democratic transformations” wracking the former Soviet Space in the early years of this “new American Century” - notably the dioxin-induced Orange Revolution that turned Ukraine, of all places, upside down.

Ian’s and Mark’s sister Mika Brzezinski had worked as a reporter and host for CBS News for a few years until 2000, when she went over to MSNBC for a bit. Her return to CBS in early September 2001 was rewarded with the post of top New York correspondent. She was already reporting from the WTC before the second plane hit, and continued throughout the weeks after, anchoring millions of viewers to the latest from Ground Zero from the first moments of shock and awe through the early and raw phase of the “War on Terror” mentality. [5] Thus her timely return allowed her to have no small role in shaping the “widely perceived” part of what her father had four years earlier called the “direct external threat” that would allow “imperial mobilization.” [6] She later vied for an anchor slot on the back of such notable reportage, but lost the bid to Katie Kouric.

And then there’s nephew Matthew’s article that claims to expose the roots of al Qaeda’s sinister plan that led to all this. Some, like Matt, explain that the name Bojinka is a Serbo-Croatian slang word for “loud bang.” Some sources interpret it as meaning “chaos in the sky” or something to that effect. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected financier of both this plan and September 11, explained in a 2003 interview that Bojinka is simply a nonsense word he picked up in the international bazaar that was the Afghan Jihad. [7]

Maybe this is coincidence, but I think it also sounds a little like “Brzezinski” (pronounced Brr-jhin-skee). If I let my imagination run for a minute, and I will, I can visualize “Bojinka” starting out as a nonsense nickname Osama gave Zbigniew when they met in Pakistan in 1980. They were both in country at the same rough time and for the same reason. As we’ve seen, Brzezinski visited the bustling Khyber Pass on a side-trip from his mission to Pakistan in January. Meanwhile, the Soviet invasion had made Osama “furious,” as he later recalled, and he was far from alone. As one of many sons from the Saudi Kingdom’s second richest family, he was the top export they had at the time. He first arrived at Peshawar, near the Khyber Pass, within weeks of the invasion - January. [8]

He and Brzezinski were both there to boost the funding and the morale of the frontline troops and to show the unity of purpose in the anti-Soviet alliance: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the U.K., and the U.S. Thus as the top representatives of their respective allied nations, it would in fact be a bit odd if the two men hadn’t met. It is a hard name to pronounce. “Ah, here he is now, our American friend Mr. Buruz… zuzzuz.. Mr. Baarrjjuzzz… Mr. Bojinka!” (big hearty laughs all around, it evolves among the Muj into a little frontline joke, one thing leads to another…) Both men would, and have, denied such meetings; bin Laden claims he never knew he was serving America’s interests at all. But it’s an intriguing thought, and vaguely possible. Weird things abound, I’ve found, around this weird name.

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”https://www.mega.nu/ampp/privacy.html-Zbigniew Brzezinski

Brzezinski wrote in Between Two Ages- America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, (1970) p 57:

“As one specialist noted, ‘By the year 2018, technology will make available to the leaders of the major nations, a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need to be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly by bacteriological means, thoroughly weakening the population (though with a minimum of fatalities) before taking over with its own armed forces. Alternatively, techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm….”

I. Comment: The US & European States are still using Brzezinski's Muslim terrorist strategy! by Jared IsraelII. Interview with Brzezinski [Posted 6 September 2004]=======================================

Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is important for three reasons. First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression. Not so, says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action:

"I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets."

Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called "conspiracy theory." To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories. But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels. One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue *in principle* that they would not use it again? We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).

========================================================Lying with dollars========================================================

Brzezinski and his protégé, Zalmay Khalilzad, set up a corporation in 1985, funded by the US congress, to train the mujahideen to sell reporters the lie that the mujahideen were freedom fighters and victims of aggression:

Guerrillas in Afghanistan are about to get money from the United States government for a public relations campaign intended to bring their struggle against Soviet troops to the world's attention. The money will train Afghan rebel journalists to use television, radio and newspapers to advance their cause. Reporters will be given mini-cameras to photograph the war inside Afghanistan. "It is the goal of this project to facilitate the collection, development and distribution of credible, objective and timely professional-quality news stories, photographs and television images about developments in Afghanistan," said a notice in the Federal Register. The program will be overseen by Uncle Sam's own propaganda arm, the U.S. Information Agency. Congress appropriated $500,000 to hire experts and may provide more later.

In making the money available, Congress all but instructed USIA to consider an organization like Friends of Afghanistan, a new group whose board includes former Carter administration national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, known for hard-line anti-Soviet views. USIA has solicited proposals, due Sept. 25. Friends of Afghanistan includes other American foreign policy luminaries such as Lawrence Eagleburger, a former undersecretary of state, and Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, a Columbia University political science professor and some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan. [Note from Jared Israel - Eagleburger played a prominent role in first Bush administration in demonizing the Bosnian Serbs.][...]Afghan rebels, called the Mujahadeen, have been battling 100,000 Soviet troops who have occupied the rugged, mountainous country since December 1979.[...][Excerpt from Associated Press dispatch ends here]The Associated Press referred to Khalilzad as a "some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan." This was in the late summer of 1985. Less than three years later Tass, the Soviet news agency, reported that Khalilzad was delivering the mujahideen an important message from the State Department. Khalilzad told them that the State Department would continue to support them a) only if they could consolidate control of Afghanistan and b) only if they maintained an attitude of implacable hostility to the government in Kabul. In other words the US ordered the mujahideen *not* to make peace:

"'The United States has told the Afghan guerrillas that it would support them in an effort to form a provisional government if they consolidate their control of most of the country and meet other criteria,' the newspaper New York Times today quoted State Department officials as saying. A top State Department official made it clear that the government must oppose 'the soviet-backed regime in Kabul' and said that the USA did not 'accept the legitimacy' of the authorities in Afghanistan. The relevant message was delivered to the rebels in the Pakistani city of Peshawar last week by Zalmay Khalilzad, a special adviser on Afghanistan to under secretary of state Michael H. Armacost..."[-- To Support Afghan Counter Revolutionaries New York; The Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, May 6, 1988, Friday]

========================================================Applying the techniques developed in Afghanistan to Bosnia========================================================Brzezinski's interview has tremendous importance today. According to a Dutch intelligence report on Bosnia, in the early 1990s Pentagon intelligence worked with the Saudis and Iranians to bring weapons and mujahideen terrorists - the 'Afghan Arabs' - into Bosnia to indoctrinate and lead Alija Izetbegovic's Muslim extremists in fighting the Bosnian Serbs. [1] The same terrorists had been used against the pro-Soviet side in Afghanistan. Once again the media lied, claiming the Bosnian Serbs were fighting to destroy the Bosnian Muslims (i.e., genocide) when they were in fact defending their communities from the mujahideen, and were allied with a large group of moderate Muslims. [2] This picture appeared in the London Times on December 11, 1995. The caption reads: "One of the Bosnian Army's Muslim brigades marches through Zenica in a demonstration of strength by 10,000 soldiers." Note that according to the Times these 10,000 troops constituted only *one* of "the Bosnian Army's Muslim brigades..."

During the 1990s, pictures like this were as rare as hen's teeth in the Western media. Why? Because they graphically demonstrated that the media was lying when it claimed that the "Bosnian Government" was moderate and multiculturalist and so on. The white costumes these troops are wearing are the uniforms of Middle Eastern mujahideen, not Yugoslav Muslims. The Bosnian Muslim troops wore them because they had been indoctrinated by Muslim extremists, including mujahideen imported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other extremist states, with the participation of Pentagon intelligence. In the early part of the Bosnian conflict (up until January 1993) Zalmay Khalilzad, the protégé of Zginew Brzezinski, was in charge of strategic planning at the Pentagon. [3]

In Afghanistan (as Brzezinski proudly states) and then in Bosnia, the US sponsored Muslim terror even as the State Department was officially condemning it. Because ordinary people would never support such a policy, it was sold to the public as support for freedom fighters (Afghanistan) or as defense of abused Muslims (Bosnia.) By the late 1980s Brzezinski's protégé, Prof. Zalmay Khalilzad, was the top strategist of the Afghan war. Under the administration of Bush, Sr., Khalilzad was in charge of strategy at the Pentagon. We have substantial evidence that it was under Bush, Sr., not Clinton, that the US began assisting the mujahideen in Bosnia. So, in both cases, we have Brzezinski's protégé directing the use of Muslim extremism as a weapon against a secular state, with the media misrepresenting the nature of the fight. The Brzezinski Doctrine in action.========================================================2001: Brzezinski's protégé Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed Senior National Security Director for Southwest Asia, the heartland of Muslim extremist terror...========================================================Want some food for thought? From May 23, 2001 until November 27, 2003, Prof. Khalilzad was "Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues, National Security Council." Southwest Asia covers the area from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, including Iraq and Iran; it includes most of the Middle East and extends to Georgia. See White House map athttp://www.politicsol.com/terrorism/maps.html* Khalilzad was in charge of US policy on the ground in Afghanistan before and during the 2001 war. He then personally chose the Afghan government. It was under his watch that the US and Iran cooperated in convening a top level conference to give Afghanistan a government based on Muslim religious law. Now he's Ambassador and Special Envoy to Afghanistan. [4] * Even while Khalilzad was in charge of Afghanistan he was also the key man on the ground before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. He was in charge of political relations with Iraqi exile politicians and the Iranian and Saudi governments up until the fall 2003. A crucial period.* His area of official responsibility included Georgia during the period when the US was intensifying the financing and training of the Georgian military. Russia accuses Georgia of aiding the Chechen terrorists.

Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel ObservateurLe Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement? Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it? Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it. Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today? Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire. Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat... Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries... * Footnotes and Further Reading [1] Regarding Alija Izetbegovic's Muslim extremism, see "Who was Alija Izetbegovic? Moderate 'George Washington' of Bosnia or Islamist Murderer?" http://emperors-clothes.com/bosnia/izet.htm[2]Regarding the Pro-Yugoslav Muslims who allied with the Bosnian Serbs, thus giving the lie to the charge that the Serbs were religious bigots, see "Pro-Yugoslav Muslim Leader Put on Trial," at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/abdic.htm[3] Regarding Khalilzad's role in the Pentagon under the first Bush administration, go to http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm#head* Regarding the Dutch intelligence report on the Pentagon's coordination of intervention in Bosnia by Muslim states (especially Iran) see http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/deja.htm#dutch[4]Regarding Khalilzad choosing the Afghan government, see http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm#3

Regarding the top level conference where the US and Iran cooperated to design an Afghan constitution based on Muslim religious law, see "The IDLO, Backed by the US and Iran, Planned Muslim rule for Afghanistan," athttp://emperors-clothes.com/news/idlo.htm

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

In The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski said “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”. He then spent the rest of the book describing how to achieve that imperial mobilization.

He described the “problems” of democracy:

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion" - p. 35

"A genuinely populist democracy has never before attained international supremacy. The pursuit of power and especially the economic costs and human sacrifice that the exercise of such power often requires are not generally congenial to democratic instincts. Democratization is inimical to imperial mobilization." - p. 210

"Indeed, the critical uncertainty regarding the future may well be whether America might become the first superpower unable or unwilling to wield its power. Might it become an impotent global power?" - p. 210

He describes the need to motivate the masses:

"More generally, cultural change in America may also be uncongenial to the sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power. That exercise requires a high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification. Yet the dominant culture of the country has become increasingly fixated on mass entertainment that has been heavily dominated by personally hedonistic and socially escapist themes. The cumulative effect has made it increasingly difficult to mobilize the needed political consensus on behalf of sustained, and also occasionally costly, American leadership abroad. Mass communications have been playing a particularly important role in that regard, generating a strong revulsion against any selective use of force that entails even low levels of casualties." - p. 211

He described how to achieve this:

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War." - p. 211

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." - p. 35

He wrote on geostrategic control:

"In brief, for the United States, Eurasian geostrategy involves the purposeful management of geostrategically dynamic states and the careful handling of geopolitically catalytic states, in keeping with the twin interests of America in the short-term preservation of its unique global power and in the long-run transformation of it into increasingly institutionalized global cooperation. To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." - p. 40

"A geostrategic issue of crucial importance is posed by China's emergence as a major power. The most appealing outcome would be to co-opt a democratizing and free-marketing China into a larger Asian regional framework of cooperation." - p. 54

He scared people into either accepting empire or “anarchy”:

"In that context, for some time to come -- for more than a generation -- America's status as the world's premier power is unlikely to be contested by any single challenger. No nation-state is likely to match America in the four key dimensions of power (military, economic, technological, and cultural) that cumulatively produce decisive global political clout. Short of a deliberate or unintentional American abdication, the only real alternative to American global leadership in the foreseeable future is international anarchy. In that respect, it is correct to assert that America has become, as President Clinton put it, the world's "indispensable nation." " - p. 195

He described regionalization leading to Global Government:

"By pioneering in the integration of nation-states into a shared supranational economic and eventually political union, Europe is also pointing the way toward larger forms of postnational organization, beyond the narrow visions and the destructive passions of the age of nationalism." - p. 57

He spoke of the need for expansion of the EU into central Europe:

"In the current circumstances, the expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary -- probably by 1999 -- appears to be likely. After this initial but significant step, it is likely that any subsequent expansion of the alliance will either be coincidental with or will follow the expansion of the EU. The latter involves a much more complicated process, both in the number of qualifying stages and in the meeting of membership requirements (see chart on page 83). Thus, even the first admissions into the EU from Central Europe are not likely before the year 2002 or perhaps somewhat later. Nonetheless, after the first three new NATO members have also joined the EU, both the EU and NATO will have to address the question of extending membership to the Baltic republics, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia, and perhaps also, eventually, to Ukraine." - p. 81

"It follows, therefore, that states that are in a position to begin and are invited to undertake accession talks with the EU should automatically also be viewed henceforth as subject in effect to NATO's presumptive protection." - p. 83

"Given the growing consensus regarding the desirability of admitting the nations of Central Europe into both the EU and NATO, the practical meaning of this question focuses attention on the future status of the Baltic republics and perhaps also that of Ukraine." - p. 50

He described Inter-Union integration:

"...the United States would do well to consider the adoption of an American-Japanese free trade agreement, thereby creating a common American-Japanese economic space. Such a step, formalizing the growing linkage between the two economies, would provide the geopolitical underpinning both for America's continued presence in the Far East and for Japan's constructive global engagement." - p. 192

"Tokyo can carve out a globally influential role by cooperating closely with the United States regarding what might be called the new agenda of global concerns, while avoiding any futile and potentially counterproductive effort to become a regional power itself. The task of American statesmanship should hence be to steer Japan in that direction. An American-Japanese free trade agreement, creating a common economic space, would fortify the connection and promote the goal, and hence its utility should be jointly examined." - p. 208

"A Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united EU and the United States. In any case, the EU's eventual success in burying the centuries-old European nationalist antagonisms, with their globally disruptive effects, would be well worth some gradual diminution in America's decisive role as Eurasia's current arbitrator." - p. 200

And he implied that American Empire would give over to Global Government:

"Accordingly, once American leadership begins to fade, America's current global predominance is unlikely to be replicated by any single state. Thus, the key question for the future is "What will America bequeath to the world as the enduring legacy of its primacy?" " - p. 210

"Meeting these challenges is America's burden as well as its unique responsibility. Given the reality of American democracy, an effective response will require generating a public understanding of the continuing importance of American power in shaping a widening framework of stable geopolitical cooperation, one that simultaneously averts global anarchy and successfully defers the emergence of a new power challenge. These two goals-- averting global anarchy and impeding the emergence of a power rival-- are inseparable from the longer-range definition of the purpose of America's global engagement, namely, that of forging an enduring framework of global geopolitical cooperation."- p. 214

"In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945." - p. 215

"In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world's current "regent," which has for the time being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower." - p. 215